K. Srinivasa Rao & Ors. v. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.761 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: This appeal is & Ors.

This appeal is by the claimants dissatisfied by the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kakinada, in M.V.O.P.No.177 of 1994, dated 26.08.1998.

The aforesaid claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased. The claimants are the husband and the minor children of the deceased, Koneti Nagaratnam, who died in the accident, which occurred on

30.04.1994. It is claimed that the first respondent asked the deceased and other labourers to unload the lorry and entered into a contract with them for casual labour. While they were traveling in the said vehicle at about 7 A.M. near Chinnampeta the lorry, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, met with an accident resulting in serious injurious to the deceased. She later succumbed to the injuries on

12.05.1994. The first claimant is the husband and second and third claimants are the sons and fourth claimant is the daughter of the deceased. The compensation case was filed against first respondent, driver; second respondent, owner and third respondent, insurer of the said offending lorry bearing No. AP 11T 3789. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are the driver, owner and insurer of the other lorry bearing No. ABK 9995 with which the collision took place before. A joint and several claim for compensation was made against all the respondents.

On evidence the Tribunal found on issue No.1 that there is no evidence of rash and negligent driving on the part of the first respondent and fourth respondent – drivers and as such the death of the deceased owing to negligence on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was not accepted. The liability so far as the second respondent is concerned is, therefore, negatived. The Tribunal, however, found that the deceased was working as a coolie and she was engaged as such by the first respondent in the coolly work. However, keeping in view the evidence of P.W.2 that the place of residence of the deceased being 30 KM away from the place where she is said to be waiting for coolie work, the tribunal disbelieved the version of the claimants that the deceased was engaged by the first respondent for coolie wok. The tribunal, therefore, found that even accepting the case of the claimants that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, the risk was not covered by the Insurance Policy. The tribunal, therefore, examined Exs.B-2 and B-3, certificates issued by R.T.A., regarding the license and report given by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and came to the conclusion that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not liable to pay the compensation. The negligence also has not been proved against respondent Nos.4 to 6 and the liability against them is also rejected. However, under “no fault liability”, as contemplated under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded. Dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N. Siva Reddy, who strenuously contended that the evidence on record is ignored and irrespective of the liability on respondent Nos.1 to 3, the respondent Nos.4 to 6 are, in any case, liable as the death resulted on account of the collision between the two lorries and the principle of …. could not have been applied by the Court. He also contended that the deceased has been engaged as a casual labour, which shows that the claim for compensation on that basis ought to have been assessed based upon the earning of the deceased per day.

Both the aforesaid contentions are unsustainable in view of the fact that there is no evidence in respect of the said claim as mentioned above. As mentioned above, the tribunal already found that the claimants failed to prove any rash and negligent driving either on the part of respondent Nos.1 to 3 or the respondent Nos.4 to 6. Consequently, the claim for damages against the said respondents was not sustainable. However, the Tribunal has granted compensation under “no fault liability”. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of evidence, the compensation cannot be enhanced as prayed for. The civil miscellaneous appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR, J September 11, 2009 MD